9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue. The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the declaration by Sri K. N. Narayan dated July 16, 1969, throwing his interest in the partnership firms into the joint family hotchpot was valid in law?" K. N. Narayan was a partner in two fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the declaration made by the assessee has to be ignored altogether. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and reversed the order of the Commissioner. It has followed the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Madras, in I.T.A. No. 547 (Mds) of 75-76 (ITO v. P. Muthuramakrishnan, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the karta entering into partnership with others by investing family funds for carrying on a business is also equally well-settled. The partnership that is so created will be governed by the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Such partnership is not between the family and the other partners, but it is partnership between the karta individually and other partners. Similar would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ily funds to the capital of the firm. The learned counsel frankly submitted, and in our opinion rightly, that the karta would be accountable to the joint family and that share income should be brought to tax only in the HUF assessment, and not in the assessment of the individual. If that is the correct principle, we fail to see why an HUF should be denied of that benefit when the asset of a coparc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
